Mullin 2001 - Chaging Patters of Research Funding

CHANGING P ATTERNS OF RESEARCH F UNDING (1960-2000)
A Paper by James Mullin,

Mullin Consulting Ltd,
Kanata, Ontario, Canada
To be published in UNECSO’s International Social Science Journal, Vol .168, July 2001
?
mC
mC? “Changing Patterns of Research Funding”
The last forty years of the twentieth century have witnessed the explosive growth of investments
in scientific research and technological development, first in the industrialized countries then
later in many developing states. Today, even the smaller states of the developing world are
asking themselves about the kinds of investments which they will need to make in this
increasingly open and ‘globalized’ world.
Behind this growth, there have been substantial changes in the sociology of research, brought
about in part in response to the increasing expectations and demands of those who finance the
activity. These changes in demands, it is argued here, are reflected in changing volumes and
patterns of research funding , particularly in the case of research in the natural sciences and
engineering.
Two different views of research
The perception of how research ‘ought to be carried out’ which was widely held in the early
1960s was captured by Michael Polanyi, a chemist and Fellow of the Royal Society of London,
in his paper “The Republic of Science” where he argued that “So long as each scientist keeps
making the best contribution of which he is capable, and on which no one could improve (….) we may
affirm that the pursuit of science by independent self-coordinated initiatives assures the most efficient
possible organization of scientific progress. And we may add, again, that any authority which would
undertake to direct the work of the scientist centrally would bring the progress of science virtually to a
i
standstill” (POLANYI, 1962, p 56)
By the mid nineteen-nineties, others were arguing that there were ‘new modes of production of
knowledge’ in which
< “knowledge is ever more produced in the context of its applications, and there are greater expectations that
support of research will lead directly to economic and social benefits for the nation providing th e support
< there is an inescapable trend towards larger and more interdisciplinary teams working in more
transdisciplinary research activities;
< there is a growing diversity of participating organizations to be found in today's research teams (there can be
a blurring of institutional boundaries) and these teams are becoming more transient - disappearing at the
end of a particular project or program;
< there is a continuing trend towards greater international linkages within research teams.” (Gibbons et al,
1994)ii
The most obvious manifestations of this new style are the many formal networks of researchers
which have emerged in recent years, particularly in the industrialised countries. It should be
noted however that in research in developing countries financed by donors of official
development assistance, the modality of the formal research network has long been populariii and
in some cases has been seen as an alternative to the informal ‘invisible colleges’ of cooperating
scholars often found in the “Republic of Science’. Those “invisible colleges”, first described by
de Solla Priceiv (1963) were seen by him to be ‘informal collectives of closely interacting scientists,
generally limited to a size "that can be handled by interpersonal relationships”’.
In the “Republic of Science”, the preferred modality of funding was, and still is, the peer-
reviewed grant awarded to individual researchers based on criteria of scientific quality of the
design of the proposed activity, of the likelihood of the results contributing to the advancement
of knowledge, and on the track record of the scientist involved. Such grants, in which the
Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 2

scientific objectives are selected by the scientist making the proposal, are referred to in Canada
as ‘research grants’, and this terminology will be used in this paper.
Today, in many countries, these research grants are complemented by a wide range of other
modalities, often involving contracts rather than grants, in which the financing source may
require that the activity address some identified economic or social issue, or that it employ some
new form of scientific cooperation, or both. Many of these new modalities involve significantly
higher sums of money than do research grants. In most countries, there are specific modalities
designed to promote university-industry co-operation and, in many countries, programs to
encourage and support networking.
In the early eighties, two scholars made an important point concerning the significance, to
policy-makers, of the different types of modalities of funding. In their paper (Gibbons and
Farina, 1982)v which examined all of the research grants made by the main granting agencies in
the natural sciences and engineering in both Canada and the United Kingdom over a ten-year
period, the authors argued that the peer review process, as applied to the selection of recipients of
research grants, promoted a great stability in the distribution of funds, by discipline and by
academic institution. There was no evidence that recipients of individual research grants were in
any way affected by statements of changing governmental priorities. When Governments
wished to influence the direction of activities in academic science, they had to introduce new,
specific modalities which could explicitly incorporate the additional criteria desired by the
sponsoring agency.
Starting from this assertion, this paper will examine how governments have changed the relative
allocation of funds between research grants and other forms of financial support, in search of
evidence of increasing attempts by funding authorities to guide or direct science in ways which
would give rise to the “new modes of production of knowledge’ posited by Gibbons and his
colleagues(Gibbons et al, 1994, op cit). It will also examine the changing foci of government
policy–making relating to science and technology in an attempt to understand the policy context
in which decisions relating to the financing of science have been, and are being, made.
In what follows, there will be an examination of the evidence available in Canada to explore the
shifting patterns of funding of science followed by a series of sketches of how, if at all, the same
processes are proceeding in two developing countries, Chile and South Africa. Throughout, the
definitions of science, research and other related activities used in the paper will, unless
otherwise noted, be those used by the OECD in its compilation of internationally-comparable
statistics in the area of science and technology (OECD 1964)vi
Since this paper is discussing changing patterns in the funding of science rather than absolute
levels of funding, most of the data presented will be expressed, where possible, in terms of
percentage shares of national efforts. Where absolute values are cited, they will be in national
currency (to avoid the difficulties of accounting for fluctuating exchange rates globally over a
long period of time), and they will usually be normalized against a constant unit of national
currency for some stated year, to remove the question of inflation from any enquiry about
changing patterns.

The Evolution of Governmental thinking on the support of science and

technologyvii
In the industrialised world, the OECD, through its Committee on Scientific and Technological
Policy, (CSTP) has acted as a forum in which serious and valuable attempts are made to
synthesise the best of the thinking on S&T policy of the member countries. Periodically, it sets
out to challenge the established policies of the member countries by permitting high-level groups
of acknowledged leaders in thinking about science and technology to look at future directions in
S&T policy. The Pigagnol Report (OECD 1963)viii was the OECD's initial call to governments to
take questions of the support of R&D seriously, since it recognised the relationship between
scientific and technical activity and the dynamism of an economy. A year later, the CSTP
published the Frascati Manual (OECD 1964)ix which, since that time, has established the basis
for measuring S&T activities within industrialised countries. This was the era in which the US
National Academy of Sciences published its report entitled “Basic Research and National
Goals”(NAS 1965)x and the scholar Michael Polanyi was arguing his case for “The Republic of
Science” (Polanyi, 1962) in which all decisions on the funding of science were to be made by
active scientists. At this stage of early development of thinking on S&T Policy, the major
emphasis was on inputs to R&D - policy concern focused on the financing of R&D, the
availability of highly-qualified people and of laboratory facilities, and on the roles of public
institutions and programs.
Since the Pigagnol Report, at the rate of roughly once per decade, OECD has released major
overviews of S&T Policy thinking in the developed world. The Brooks Report, (OECD 1971)xi
captured the state of the debate on issues such as the integration of science policies with
economic and social policies, and the role of multinational firms in technical progress and it
raised the question of how technological change was affecting the environment. By this time,
concern for the difficult issue of measuring the outputs of R&D systems was becoming an
increasingly important preoccupation. Next came the Delapalme Report (OECD 1980)xii which
dealt in detail with the need for efforts to harmonise economic and technology policies and
which asked how the member governments of OECD could “arrive at a synthesis of economic,
technological and social adjustment policies which will optimise the contributions of technological
development to economic and social development”.
Countries, both developed and developing, are still searching for such a synthesis. At that point
in time, in the early 1980s, the process of technological innovation was beginning to be
recognised as a more appropriate focus of attention than simply looking at R&D per se. Also at
this time, OECD began to look at the question of university-industry relations in R&D.
Finally, most recently, a major series of reports from the Council of OECD in the early 1990s
entitled Technology and Economic Policy has situated thinking about technical change at the
core of economic policy - even if many contemporary economists still have difficulty grasping
the implications of this position.
The work at OECD leading up to Technology and Economic Policy was a stimulus to important
efforts which sought to delineate the policy significance of the concept of ‘national systems of
innovation’. Probably the most influential early publication on the subject was that edited by
the Danish scholar, Lundvall (Lundvall, 1992)xiii

Today, the industrialised countries have reached the conclusion that technical change is the
principal driving force behind economic growth within their economies. Further, it is also
understood that technical change has two primary sources - technological innovation and
technology diffusion. This latter concept - technology diffusion - is crucially important and has
embedded within it the need for the recipient of technology to participate in a continuing process
of incremental innovation to adjust the acquired technology to the needs of the markets and
supply systems of the user of the technology.
To oversimplify, perhaps, in the industrialised countries one can think of the 1960s and early
1970s as the era of science policy, the late 1970s and 1980s as the era of science and technology
policies, and the 1990s as the era of science, technology and innovation policies. During these
years there has been a global process of cumulative learning about the range of issues which
need to be encompassed in the attempt to harness the forces of technological change to national
economic and social development.
S&T Policy thinking within the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
The Inter-American Development Bank has exerted, for many years, a significant influence on
the thinking of Latin American countries on the financing of S&T. The evolution of IDB
policy and practice with respect to S&T funding has been documented and reviewed by
Mayorgaxiv and his analysis is the basis of this commentary.
IDB is still formally operating under an explicit S&T Policy (OP-744) adopted in 1968. During
the first twenty years (1968-1987) the bank
‘focused almost exclusively on activities and investments for a single basic purpose: the
creation of R&D capacity in universities and public research centres. [emphasis in the
original] The objective was largely pursued through two types of instruments: (a) postgraduate
scholarships abroad for the training and specialization of researchers from such institutions and
(b) investments for the construction and equipping of R&D infrastructure, such as
laboratories, libraries and computer centres .’ (Mayorga, 1997, p2)
These preoccupations with the inputs to national R&D systems mirrored the thinking of the time
in many OECD countries. In effect, the Bank was following policies like those discussed in the
OECD’s Pigagnol Report.
Mayorga goes on to argue that
‘Towards the end of the 1980s, a second strategic objective in Bank S&T operations became
clear: direct stimulation of demand by private enterprise and the linkage between producers and
users of knowledge and techniques.’
And this he sees as a natural consequence of the growing attention being paid, within member
countries’ economic policies, to questions of productivity and international competitiveness.
This shift in emphasis was implemented without any change being deemed necessary in the
formal statement of Bank S&T Policy. Again, this can be seen as thinking which parallelled the
growing focus on technological innovation which was evident in the work of the OECD.

It was during this later period of Bank loans that emphasis on the promotion of peer review
systems became pronounced in Bank operations, with the Bank seeing such reviews as ‘[a]n
effective practice for establishing strict quality standards for R&D’. (i.e. the standards of the
‘Republic of Science’).
By the late 1990s, still before any formal amendment of Bank Policy OP-744, the composition
of IDB S&T loans had changed significantly and could be seen typically to include many or all
of the following elements:
& Technology Development Funds, usually in the form of a line of credit available to business
enterprises for the introduction of new or improved products, processes or services, and
typically financed by either reimbursable loans, by shared risk and benefit financing, or by
subsidies tied to joint ownership of the results of the activity.;
& Competitions for non-reimbursable financing for research and S&T services projects, open
to academic institutions, government institutes and agencies and private, non-profit
organizations;
& Human Resource Training, which may be financed via grants or loans, depending on
circumstances;
& Infrastructure strengthening, which are subject to much stricter evaluation criteria than in the
early period of Bank S&T activity;
& Technology diffusion, including the development of industrial technology extension systems
and the establishment of new types of technology centres;
& Information and popularisation activities, to increase public awareness of and support for
S&T activities; and
& Study and co-ordination of policies for National Systems of Innovation.
These changes are moving towards some of the criteria of the “new modes of production of
knowledge”.
*****
This, then, was the changing context in which governments in particular sought to decide on the
allocation of resources to a variety of activities in science and technology during the period
under review. In the remainder of this paper, an attempt will be made to see what happened, in
particular, to the financing of scientific research.

The case of Canada
Canada is one of the mid-sized industrialized countries which, over the last thirty to forty years,
has usually been placed at about seventh in the list of countries ranked by their spending on
R&D, measured in terms of the ratio of its Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) to GDP.
Canada’s GERD typically has represented about 1.5% of GDP in recent years . [Here, it should
be noted that in a country like Canada, expenditures on R&D typically represent about 60% of
national expenditures on ‘science and technology’, with the remaining 40% being allocated to
‘related scientific activities’ such as data collection, information services, testing and standards,
and so forth – all activities which represent essential elements of the technological infrastructure
of a modern economy.]
1.80
1971 - Social Sciences included
for first time
1.60
1.40
1.20
Percentage of GDP
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
99
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Figure 1 – Canada’s GERD to GDP Ratio

Source : Industry Canada
Figures 2 and 3 show the distribution of R&D activities in Canada among sectors , first by source
of funds and then by performer, over the period since 1963 and they clearly reflect the outcomes
of Canadian policy over the years.

60.0
50.0
40.0
Federal Government
Provincial Government
Business Enterprise
30.0
Higher Education
Private Non-Profit
Foreign
20.0
10.0
0.0
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Figure 2 ; The Distribution, by source of funding, of Canada’s Gross Expenditure on R&D, 1963-1998.
Source: Statistics Canada, Estimates of Canadian Expenditures on Research & Development (GERD), various years
70.0
Federal Government
60.0
Business Enterprise
Higher Education
Other
50.0
Percentage Share
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Year
Figure 3 ; The Distribution, by performer, of Canada’s Gross Expenditure on R&D, 1963-1998.

v As a result of a combination of market forces and of government policy (especially a

generous policy of tax incentives for industrial R&D), the business enterprise sector has
become the dominant performer and source of funding of R&D in Canada.;
v As a result of both S&T and macroeconomic policy (which lead to significant reductions in
public spending in all areas of government activity), the share of R&D funded and
performed by the federal government has declined substantially; and
v For the academic sector, after having attained the highest share of performance for one year
only – 1971- it has seen that share undergo a slow decline during a period of almost thirty
years.

Figures 2 and 3 deal with all research activity in the country. For the natural sciences alone (i.e.
by excluding the health, social and human sciences) the picture is similar except that the share
enjoyed by the academic sector varies in a narrower band. The picture for funding of research in
the social sciences, however, is distinctly different, as can be seen in Figure 4.
70.0
60.0
50.0
Federal Government
Percentage Share
Business Enterprise
40.0
Higher Education
Private Non-Profit
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Figure 4: Sources of Funding of Social Science Research in Canada, 1971-1998
Source : SSHRC, Private Communication
In the social sciences, where salary costs are a very significant factor in research, the higher
education sector is the dominant source of funding. The pattern of research funding in the area
has been one of considerable stability over a lengthy period, and is very similar to the pattern of
performance.
Throughout the period under review, the performance of investigator-driven research has been
primarily, but not exclusively, the domain of the universities. The distribution of sources of
funding of research in Canadian universities is set out in Figure 5.

60.0
Federal Government
50.0 Business Enterprise
Higher Education
Other
40.0
Percentage Share
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Year
Figure 5: Sources of Funding of R&D in Canadian Universities

In this figure, it should be noted that ;

v The estimates of expenditures attributed to the higher education sector include the salaries of
academic researchers, much investment in infrastructure, and small amounts of direct support
to research projects; this share has been in more-or-less steady decline for many years;
v The federal share, which will be analyzed below, has wavered around 30% of the total;
v The share financed by business has grown from 2.5% in the early 1960’s to just under 12% in
the late 1990’s; and
v The share of “Other Sources”, after remaining in the 7-9% range for much of the period, has
seen a notable upturn in the most recent three years. Much of this funding is provided by
voluntary agencies interested in different medical problems; there is also a foreign
component, again primarily in the health field.
A very high proportion of federal support to research in Canada’s universities (typically in the
range of 80-85%) is provided by the three “Granting Councils” which came into operation in
their present forms in 1978. These councils are the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council, (NSERC), the Medical Research Council, (MRC), and the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). In 1998, a new actor arrived on the scene with the
establishment of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, (CFI), a body with a mandate to
support the acquisition of major new pieces of research equipment in Canada’s universities and
research hospitals.
Figure 6 shows how the pattern of federal support to R&D in the country’s universities from the
Granting Councils and from the aggregation of other federal departments and agencies which

offer contracts for particular pieces of research. It also shows the relative scale of the importance
of the injection of new federal funding for equipment via the CFI. The main point to be taken is
the relative stability in this particular pattern prior to the introduction of the CFI, which was
described as an initiative of ‘renewal’ of the national research base. The timing of the new
initiative was closely tied to two factors – the re-establishment of a surplus in the federal budget
for the first time in over thirty years and the conviction of the federal Minister of Finance that
investments in research infrastructure represented a key basis for economic competitiveness.
60.0
50.0
NSERC
MRC
40.0
SSHRC
% Share of Funds provided
Can Foundation for Innovation

Other federal sources
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Yesr
Figure 6: Percentage shares of Federal Funding of University R&D, by source

Source: Statistics Canada, Federal Scientific Activities, various years

250.0
200.0
NSERC
MRC
Millions of Constant 1978 Dollars
SSHRC
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
78- 79- 80- 81- 82- 83- 84- 85- 86- 87- 88- 89- 90- 91- 92- 93- 94- 95- 96- 97- 98- 99-
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
Fiscal Year
Figure 7: Annual Grant Budgets (excluding administration) of Canadian Granting Councils

Source: Government of Canada, Public Accounts, various years
The growth of the budgets of the three granting councils for support of research, expressed in
constant 1978 dollars, is shown in Figure 7. There has been evident real growth in all fields and a
fairly consistent relative distribution among the three budgets.
An analysis of the spending on support of research at NSERC leads to evidence of the

hypothesized changing patterns of research support. Figure 8 attempts to capture both the
growth in spending and the changing internal allocations by using constant 1978 dollars and
normalizing all of the data against the 1978 expenditure on research grants.

250
NCE Program Announced

Normalised Allocation in constant 1978 Dollars, with 1978 Operating Grants = 100
200
Research Grants
Other research expenditures
150
100
50
0
19 9
19 0
19 1
19 2
19 3
19 4
19 5
19 6
19 7
19 8
19 9
19 0
19 1
19 2
19 3
19 4
19 5
19 6
19 7
19 8
9
-7
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
19
Fiscal Year
Figure 8: Distribution of NSERC Grant Budget between “research grants” and other types of grant
Source : Calculated from data provided by NSERC, Private Communication
What emerges is a pattern showing that expenditures on ‘other types of grant’ have grown
relative to allocations to research grants per se, and that the relative shift was very marked with
the introduction of the federal “Networks of Centres of Excellence” (NCE) program in 1989.
However, while traditional emphasis may have shifted away from support of individual research
grants, there has been an increasing number of people supported by such grants (rising from
5,480 in 1978 to 7,634 in 1998) and the purchasing power of the grants, as expressed in constant
1978 dollars, has remained stable (see Figure 9, below). In effect, it can be argued that, over the
last four decades, a slowly growing number of independent Canadian researchers have been
enabled to remain within the ‘Republic of Science’ while the overall national system has much
more rapidly developed in a manner consistent with a policy of promoting technological
innovation in the economy and along the lines of the ‘new modes of production’ model.

140
Average Research Grant as a % of 1978-79 Average,

Research Grants as a % of total Grants
constant dollars
120
100
80
Percentage
60
40
20
0
78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99
Fiscal Year
Figure 9: Patterns of NSERC Research Grants

Source : Calculated from data provided by NSERC, Private Communication
If the evidence points to the emergence of some ‘new modes of production of knowledge’, what
then are these new modes like, and what does their emergence mean for the academic wishing to
be involved in scientific research rather than technology development?
To give some indication of the range of funding modalities now in use in NSERC, consider this
list of programs which fall under the oversight of NSERC’s Committee on Research
Partnerships:
As of June 1996, the programs assigned to the Committee on Research Partnerships are:
• Strategic Projects
• Research Networks
• University-Industry Projects [including Co-operative R&D grants (CRD),Industrially
Oriented Research grants (IOR), Industrial Research Chairs (IRC), New Faculty Support
(NFS), Cooperative Activities (CAP), and Intellectual Property Management (IPM) ]
• Networks of Centres of Excellence
• Technology Partnerships Program (TPP)
According to NSERC’s website (www.nserc.ca) the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE)

program ‘focuses on building strong links among university, government and industry
researchers working in different disciplines and widely separated institutions, and on accelerating

the transfer of new technology to the private sector. The goal is to boost Canada's performance in
science and technology, and to facilitate the transfer of knowledge to those who can use it to
advance our social and economic development.’ In practice, the Networks supported have
facilitated interaction between scholars working in advanced research and high-technology
companies capable of feeding on the newly-generated information within programs of
technology development.
The NCE Program can be seen as a good example of a policy instrument being used by a
government to promote increased interactions – and, it is hoped, efficiency in the performance
of R&D and the transfer of the results of that activity into practical use – within a ‘national
system of innovation’. Its attempts to create a new and more sophisticated set of relationships is
typical of the approach of many industrialized countries as they address the challenges of
designing innovation policies in today’s very competitive environment. [The design of the
Federal NCE Program drew heavily on an earlier Provincial Centres of Excellence program
operated by the Province of Ontario]
The NCE program has sought to encourage ‘pre-competitive research’ and to respond directly to
the view of Gibbons and his colleagues that “knowledge is ever more produced in the context of its
applications, and there are greater expectations that support of research will lead directly to economic
and social benefits for the nation providing the support” (Gibbbons et al, 1994). For the many
participants in the NCE supported programs, they may justly describe their research as being at
the frontiers of knowledge. What the management of each NCE does is decide on which
frontiers of knowledge are most likely to contribute, in future, to technological development in
some particular area of potential economic or social importance.

Table 1 which follows shows NSERC expenditures in recent years on NCEs. In the program’s
first year, 1989-90, small amounts of preparatory funding were awarded. The program’s third
round of funding came into force in 1998-99
Network 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99
Canadian Bacterial Diseases 0.05 2.23 2.32 2.38 2.12 2.39 2.16 1.71 1.59 1.90
Network
Canadian Institute for 0.10 2.63 3.49 3.78 3.76 4.80 3.49 2.76 2.57
Telecommunications Research
Canadian Network for Space 0.10 5.88 3.81 3.43 3.03 0.75
Research
Centres of Excellence in Molecular 0.10 4.25 3.75 4.58 3.71 2.12
and Interfacial Dynamics
Insect Biotech Canada: 0.10 2.06 2.03 2.20 2.21 0.92
Institute for Robotics and Intelligent 0.10 6.81 5.95 5.58 5.38 6.25 5.65 4.46 4.17 4.60
Systems
Mechanical Wood-Pulps Network 0.10 3.51 3.15 3.38 3.35 4.94 3.47 2.74 2.56 2.00
Network of Centres of Excellence on 0.10 2.17 1.26 1.28 1.27 2.00 1.52 1.20 1.12
High Performance Concrete
Ocean Production Enhancement 0.10 6.31 6.56 6.16 3.45 1.28
Network
Protein Engineering Network of 0.05 4.01 1.82 1.80 1.85 3.10 2.38 1.88 1.75 2.95
Centres of Excellence
Tele-Learning Research Network 1.07 1.83 1.83 1.83
Sustainable Forest Management 0.88 1.51 1.51 1.51
Intelligent Sensing in Innovative 1.55 2.65 2.65 2.65
Structures
MICRONET: Microelectronics 0.10 2.60 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.84 2.57 2.03 1.89 2.30
Devices, Circuits and Systems for
Ultra Large Scale Integration
Geomatics for Informed Decision 1.97

Making (GEOID)
2.39
Mathematics of Information
Technology and Complex Systems
TOTAL 1.00 42.48 36.84 37.26 32.82 31.38 24.73 22.75 21.91 27.30
Table I: NSERC expenditures on Networks of Centres of Excellence (in Millions of current Canadian Dollars)
Source: NSERC
The grants made to Networks under this program are for four to five years work and may be
worth $Can 20 Millions or more over the life of the grant. Continued funding beyond a first
grant is possible, but by no means automatic.
The NCE Program and, within it the IRIS network, (The Institute for Robotics and Intelligent
Systems) can be used as an illustration of how the criteria posited by Gibbons et al being met in
practice.
The first feature was that

v knowledge is ever more produced in the context of its applications, and there are greater
expectations that support of research will lead directly to economic and social benefits for the nation
providing the support
These points are reflected in the topic areas selected (see table above) and in the requirement for
significant industrial participation to take the results of research and transform that knowledge
into technological innovations.
The second and third features of the “New Modes of Production of Knowledge” are that
< there is an inescapable trend towards larger and more interdisciplinary teams working in more
transdisciplinary research activities;
< there is a growing diversity of participating organizations to be found in today's research teams (there
can be a blurring of institutional boundaries) and these teams are becoming more transient -
disappearing at the end of a particular project or program;
Consider the IRIS program where
v Phase 1 (1990-94) financed 24 research projects, involving over 130 researchers at 18

universities, in three areas of enquiry: computational perception, knowledge-based systems,
and intelligent robotics. In addition to the $Can 23.8 million of NCE support, Phase 1
attracted $Can 1 million in industry funding.
v Phase 2 (1995-98) supported 29 research projects, involving 138 researchers at 21
universities, in five research themes: intelligent computation, human-machine interfaces,
machine sensing, advanced medical devices, and integrated systems in dynamic
environments. The four year program received $Can 20.5 million in NCE support and an
additional $Can 6.3 million in Canadian industry contributions.
v Phase 3 (1998-2002) brings together over 90 researchers from 21 Canadian universities in a
$29.4 million program, with Canadian industry contributing $Can 11.9 million, in addition to
$Can 17.5 million granted by the NCE Program.
All of the areas in which IRIS has sponsored research (computational perception, knowledge-
based systems, intelligent robotics, intelligent computation, human-machine interfaces, machine
sensing, advanced medical devices, and integrated systems in dynamic environments) are
‘transdisciplinary’ and in almost all of the projects, the research teams draw members from a
variety of disciplines and a variety of institutions.
IRIS is intimately linked with the industrial PRECARN consortium1 (www.precarn.ca) whose
40 corporate members are drawn from high-tech companies, major industrial users of robotic
systems, a major academic network (the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research) and
government research bodies. PRECARN has supported about 29 projects, in addition to the IRIS
activities, each of which has included participants drawn from its high-tech and industrial
robotics user members plus one or more university groups drawn from IRIS. Canada’s Federal
Budget for 2000 announced a contribution of an added $Can 20 Million to PRECARN.
More general information on the trends towards increasing levels of collaboration among
researchers from different sectors has been provided by Godin, Gingras and Davignon (1998)xv
1
PRECARN provides the administrative management of IRIS and has membership of its program committees.

and then by Godin and Gingras (1999)xvi in a study which argued that “universities have been
able to stay at the center of the knowledge production system by using collaboration
mechanisms.” Their analysis shows, for example, that of all of the Canadian papers in the
international literature in the sciences and engineering which had at least one author from a
university, the extent of inter-sectorial collaboration had evolved over the years in the manner
shown in Table 2
1980 1985 1990 1995

Hospital 8.3 9.3 9.4 10.3
Government 4.2 5.1 6.8 7.4
Industry 1.1 1.5 2.1 2.4
Table 2: Percentage of Canadian papers showing Collaboration of Universities with Other Sectors
Source: Godin and Gingras (1999A)
The tendencies in research support in the social sciences are broadly similar to those just
described for the natural sciences and engineering, although many of the collaborative efforts are
managed with significantly smaller investments that those in the natural sciences or engineering.
The only NCE devoted entirely to social enquiry – the Canadian Aging Research Network - was
funded as part of the first NCE competition, but the network itself dissolved and did not apply
for second round funding. Instead, there has been a steady stream of larger projects financed
under the SSHRC’s “Major Collaborative Research Initiatives”. As examples, the results of the
1997-98 competition yielded the following decisions:
Proposals Researchers $Can

Accepted
Communications 1 29 1,821,050
Environment 1 18 1,665,000
Social development and 1 19 1,259,729
welfare
Other 1 23 1,887,000
Total - 1997-98 4 89 6,632,779

Table 3: SSHRC’s Major Collaborative Initiatives for 1997-98
Source: SSHRC
On the international level, SSHRC supports four Canadian groups which are active participants
in the “International Metropolis Project”, a network which describes itself as a set of
coordinated activities carried out by a membership of research and policy organizations who
share a vision of strengthened immigration policy by means of applied academic research. The
Metropolis partnership, now from twenty countries and a number of international research and
policy organizations represents a wide range of policy and academic interests. It seeks to offer
more effective policy making, more socially meaningful research practices, and the excitement
of international collaboration . Projects such as this satisfy all four of the Gibbons criteria.

Unfortunately, much less bibliometric research has been carried out on publications in the social
sciences than has been done for the natural sciences and engineering – for example, fewer than
10% of the articles which appeared in the last three years in a leading journal specialising in
bibliometric studies (Scientometrics) have dealt with analysis of patterns of publishing in the
social sciences. As a result, there is available much less quantitative analysis of the extent of
collaboration of various types in the social sciences.
From this examination of what has gone on in the support of scientific research in Canada over
the last four decades, there emerges a four level pattern of scientific and technological activities
in the country in which
Ø about 60% of all spending on ‘science and technology’ is allocated to the support of R&D,
with the remaining 40% being allocated to the maintenance of a technological infrastructure
necessary for the functioning of a modern economy;
Ø the dominant activity in R&D is that of technology development, primarily carried out within
industrial companies in the private sector
Ø the national investment in scientific research is made through two broad channels:
Ø first, through a slowly increasing investment in the national ‘science base’, mainly in the
universities, using the norms of the Republic of Science as a means of allocating
resources; and
Ø second, and again mainly in the universities, through more rapidly increasing investments
in the ‘new modes of production of knowledge’ through a series of complex modalities of
financial support.
Policy concern over how best to preserve the vitality academic science while reaping economic
or social benefits from its results continues to be high on the Canadian science policy agenda
(see, for example, Advisory Council on Science and Technology, 1999xvii) and a search for new
modalities is likely to be a continuing feature of the political landscape.
A striking example of this search is provided by the reform of Canada’s Medical Research
Council which , on April 1, 2000, was transformed into the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, (CIHR) - a good example of institutional experimentation designed to bring together
the various interdisciplinary modes of knowledge production on health care and medical
research, embracing the medical, biological and social sciences relevant to major issues.
According to a background paper distributed by the interim executive committee of CIHR,
“Institutes created under the CIHR will not be centralized "bricks and mortar" facilities. Instead
they will be virtual, supporting and linking researchers who may be located in universities,
hospitals and other research centres to their colleagues in other institutions, in other parts of the
country, and across disciplines. They will provide thematic focal points for world class health
research in different areas of research (for example, chronic diseases or aging). Institutes will
also bring together researchers with like-minded goals and promote an alignment of research with
critical health issues in a way that involves relevant partners and researchers. A network of some
10-15 institutes will be established over time, bringing the country's top research minds to bear on
the most critical health challenges and priorities of Canadians. “
In a very real sense, the participating institutes in the CIHR will be ‘collaboratories’ of the type

described below in the citation of OECD work in the area. (OECD 1998)
One may now ask to what extent the patterns of research funding which have been observed in
Canada can be seen elsewhere in the world, and in particular in developing countries. In what
follows, some evidence will be shown for the cases of Chile and South Africa
The Case of Chile
To provide some background, Figure 10 shows the growth in Chile’s ratio of Gross Expenditures
on R&D (GERD) to GDP over a period of almost twenty years. (Chile is unusual among
developing countries in the richness of the data available on S&T activities over a long period of
time. The Departamento de Información of CONICYT is to be commended for the quality of its
work.)
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
Percentage
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
Figure 10: Chile’s Ratio of GERD to GDP

Source: Departamento de Información, CONICYT, Chile
The pattern which emerges is one of increasing allocation to R&D, over the longer term, but the
progress being affected by external economic conditions. The pattern of spending by different
sources of funding, shown in Figure 11, is dramatically different from that shown earlier for
Canada. In Chile’s case, the private sector only appears on the scene in the mid 1980’s and by

the end of the 1990’s still represents only 3% of national spending. The two main sources of
spending, the State and the Universities, dominate with their respective shares fluctuating in a
“50% plus or minus 10%” band since 1969.
Very little of what is done in the State’s set of public technological institutes would be classified
as ‘basic scientific research’; that activity is found almost exclusively in the older universities.
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
Percentage
40.0
Private sector
30.0
Universities
The State
Not for profit
20.0
10.0
0.0
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Year
Figure 11: The Distribution, by source of funding, of Chile’s Gross Expenditure on R&D, 1965-1997
Source: Information provided by Departamento de Información, CONICYT, Chile
According to a recent study by an international team, (Mullin et al 1999)xviii, “Chile’s Comisión

Nacional de Investigación Cientifica y Tecnológica, or CONICYT, was established by Law in 1968 and,
since that time, has played an important role in the financing of scientific research and technological
development in the country. It is generally viewed as a professional, committed and transparent
organization that has played an important role in strengthening the quality of Chilean research.
Particularly broad support is given to its establishment of a criteria-based decision-making and funding
system in 1981”
Over the years, the Government of Chile has created a series of competitive funds to promote
either scientific research or technology development and diffusion. One of those – FONDECYT,
created in 1982 within CONICYT – is fully dedicated to the value system of the ‘Republic of
Science’ and it is perhaps the only government-financed funding instrument in the world in
which the governing body is entirely self-appointed. The other funds – most of which are
administered by the Ministerio de Economía – are addressed either to the private sector
(FONTEC) or to specific problem areas (FIA in agriculture, FIP in fisheries, FIM in

environmental concerns relating to the mining industry). Two others (FDI and FONDEF) now
offer opportunities for collaboration among firms, public technological institutes and
universities.
FONDEF, the Fund for the Promotion of Scientific and Technological Development, was created
in 1991 as a direct result of an initiative of the Government of Chile acting in close association
with the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB). In 1992 its administration was assigned to
CONICYT ; its mission is to strengthen and help to improve the capacity for scientific and
technological innovation of national research and development institutions, by financing projects
with high quality, significance and impact in order to improve the productivity and
competitiveness of the principal sectors of the economy. Three specific objectives guide its
operations
% To increase the quality and quantity of R&D and the provision of scientific services with a
significant impact on productive activity
% To facilitate the transfer of knowledge and know-how to the productive sector through
collaborative activities between R&D performers and business
% To increase the concentration of R&D activities in areas of high priority and which offer
both social return and a contribution to the national interest.
FONDEF has evolved into an important source of financing of university activities which are
conceived in collaboration with the private sector. In effect, FONDEF is a modality designed to
stimulate R&D activities which respond to the first three criteria set out by Gibbons (Gibbons et
al, 1994)
35.0
30.0
Fondecyt as a % of GERD
Other Competitive Funds, as a % of GERD
Total as a % of GERD
25.0
Percentage of GERD
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Year
Figure 12: Chile’s investm ent in ‘competitive funds’ in relation to its GERD.
Source: Information provided by Departamento de Información, CONICYT, Chile

Figure 12 shows several elements of Chilean policy at work over the years: these elements are
1. the long-term commitment to the increasing use of competitive modalities of funding for
S&T, so that in the late 1990s, more than one quarter of all funds spent on R&D in the
country were provided via such means;
2. a period of considerable priority being allocated to the science base in the country, via
investments in FONDECYT. The level of priority allocated to FONDECYT changed in
1993; and
3. from 1993 onwards, and linked to an S&T loan from the Inter-American Development Bank,
the arrival of FONDEF on the scene and the beginnings of a commitment to ‘new modes of
production of knowledge’.
The commitment of almost 10% of Chile’s GERD to FONDECYT still represents a high level of
support to the ‘Republic of Science’. In Canada’s case, the three granting councils allocated
about 5.1% of that country’s 1999 GERD. (A detailed evaluation of the performance of
FONDECYT and FONDEF can be found in Mullin et al 1999.)
In 1997, within FONECYT, there was introduced a new mechanism – called FONDAP – which
was designed to promote large-scale projects in basic science in specially designated areas of
national priority for which collaboration among universities was to be an essential component.
Sadly, the introduction of the FONDAP initiative was enmeshed in controversy over the
selection of the first two grants to such an extent that there was little debate in the Chilean basic
research community over the long-term potential of the modality (See Mullin et al 1999)
The publication record of Chilean researchers is, in Latin American terms, very positive. (See
Table 4) but, as is to be expected, the lower levels of resources available to Chilean researchers
has meant that productivity per scientist is significantly lower than is the norm in the
industrialised world.
Year ISI listed Publications/ No of Publications

Publications 100,000 pop'n Investigators per investigator
1981 675 5.96 3,420 0.20

1982 655 5.75 3,547 0.18
1983 827 6.97 3,727 0.22
1984 707 5.86 3,886 0.18
1985 768 6.25 4,079 0.19
1986 865 6.95 4,251 0.20
1987 857 6.78 4,588 0.18
1988 934 7.18 4,803 0.19
1989 991 7.49 5,115 0.19
1990 1,112 8.37 5,421 0.20
1991 1,157 8.45 5,628 0.20
1992 1,244 8.90 5,860 0.21
1993 1,275 9.11 6,028 0.21
1994 1,255 8.78 6,223 0.20
1995 1,403 9.70 6,388 0.22

1996 1,489 6,619 0.23
Table 4 – Publications by Chilean researchers in the international literature

Source: Mullin et al, 1999, based on CONICYT data
In Chile, over the years, there has been substantial growth in the size of average FONDECYT
grants, per researcher supported, when the grant size is evaluated in constant pesos – a good
indication of the long-term commitment of FONDECYT to improving research conditions within
Chile’s “Republic of Science”.
300
250
Normalised at 1982 = 100
200
150
100
50
0
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Figure 13 Estimated Average per capita FONDECYT Research Grant as a percentage of the 1982 grants, in constant pesos
Source: calculated from Information provided by Departamento de Información, CONICYT, Chilexix
The Case of South Africa
The republic of South Africa went through a radical political transformation in the mid-1990s,
with the end of Apartheid (and of all of the associated sanctions) and with the introduction of a
new, fully-democratic, Constitution in 1994.
The early years of the new government saw widespread reviews in all areas of public activity. In
the area of Science and Technology, this review process gave rise to a consultative “Green
Paper” in 1995, a “White Paper” laying out Government Policy in 1996, and a review of all
significant government institutional involvement in science, technology and engineering in
1998xx . In Chapter 7 of the White Paper, the government committed itself the creation of “a
coordinated system [emphasis in the original] of grant financing of research in institutions of higher
education” and established a National Research Foundation to be responsible for that activity. It
also created a new “Innovation Fund” with three principal objectives, which were:

• to permit a reallocation of resources from the historical patterns of government science

towards the key issues of competitiveness, quality of life, environmental sustainability and
harnessing information technology;
• to increase the extent to which funds for the activities of government Science, Technology
and Engineering Institutions (SETIs) are obtained via competitive processes and
• to promote increased networking and cross-sectoral collaboration within South Africa’s
national system of innovation.
The modality of funding introduced by the establishment of the Innovation Fund clearly reflects
the thinking behind the “new modes of production of knowledge”
As will be shown below, these changes were to take place in a developing country with a
relatively significant research infrastructure both in terms of investment in R&D and in physical
and institutional infrastructure.
1.2
0.8
Percentage of GDP
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Figure 14: South Africa’s Ratio of GERD to GDP

Source: Private Communication, Mr. William Blankley, Manager: Science and Technology Policy Unit, National Research
Foundation, Pretoria
The first impression emerging from Figure 14 is one of a fairly stable level of investment in
R&D over a long period of time. However, it is important to note, according to South African
sources, that the survey methodology used to produce estimates of GERD underwent significant
changes on at least two occasions. The 1991 survey was unusually comprehensive and thorough
while “the lower expenditure figures in 1993 and 1997 are probably accounted for by an
underestimate of higher education R&D and sampling methodology in other sectors rather than a
real fall in R&D”xxi. Over the period covered, it might be fair to conclude that South Africa’s
GERD was maintained within the range of 0.8-1.0% of GDP which compares well with many

other developing countries.
60
50
Government
Higher education
Business
40 Non-profit
30
20
10
0
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1997
Figure 15: The Distribution, by performer, of South Africa’s Gross Expenditure on R&D, 1983-1997
Source: Private Communication, Mr. William Blankley, Manager: Science and Technology Policy Unit, National Research
The pattern of performance of R&D in South Africa (Figure 15) is highly unusual for a
developing country, in that the private sector has such an important role. This is in large part due
to the role of private companies in the performance of government-contracted defence R&D in
support of the country’s advanced armaments industry.
The effects of the government policy on the use of targeted funds in general and the Innovation
Fund (established as a result of the White Paper of 1996) in particular are clearly seen in Figure
16.

350
300
Natural Sciences and Engineering

Social Sciences
250 National Facilities
Targetted programs
Millions of current rand
200
150
100
50
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Figure 16: South African Competitive Support for Research

Source : Private Communication, Mr. William Blankley, Manager: Science and Technology Policy Unit, National Research
A second, unusual, feature of this funding pattern, given that South Africa is a mid-sized
developing country, is its support of a series of “National facilities” for basic research – facilities
of “Big Science” in which sophisticated infrastructure is needed to allow scientists from the
“Republic of Science’ to pursue their interests.. These facilities are the National Accelerator
Centre , the Hartbeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory, the SA Astronomical Observatory,
the JLB Smith Institute of Ichthyology and the Southern African Large Telescope.
Much of the funding of the Innovation Fund came from reallocation of resources which would in
the past have been allocated to the Parliamentary Grants of governmental science, technology
and engineering institutions. There is also at play a second large and growing ‘targeted program’
included in this data – the National Research Foundation’s “Technology and Human Resources
for Industry Program (THRIP) which began modestly in 1992, quickly became the largest
targeted program in response to its popularity, and was only overtaken in volume of available
resources by the Innovation Fund in the budget for FY 2000.
In Figure 17 we show that the NRF and its predecessor in the natural sciences and engineering ,
the Foundation for Research Development (FRD) has made efforts to maintain the purchasing
power of its grants in ways similar to the other countries reviewed in this paper

160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
Normalised to 1994 = 100
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Figure 17: Normalised per capita grants, in constant Rand, from NRF and its predecessor, FRD
Source : Calculated from data provided by Mr. William Blankley, Manager: Science and Technology Policy Unit, National Research
Patterns of International Collaboration in Science
The fourth criterion posited by Gibbons was that “there is a continuing trend towards greater
international linkages within research teams”. An examination of patterns of publication in the
international literature give support to this point of view.
Figure 17 shows that in the period between 1980 and 1995, the share of all papers in the pure
sciences and engineering published by Canadian authors (and cited in the Science Citation Index)
which involved international partnerships has increased continuously from 15.3% in 1980 to
30.7% in 1995, while the same ratio, when applied to the world as a whole, has risen from 5.2%
in 1980 to 14.5% in 1995. The data for Chile show even higher rates of growth in publication
with international partners over most of the period covered, growing from 16.6% in 1981 to a
high in 1994 of 39.1 %

45.0
40.0
35.0
Canada ratio
World ratio
30.0 Chile ratio
25.0
Percentage
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
Figur e 18: Ratio of “Papers with international collaboration” to “Total Papers” for
Canada, Chile and the World (expressed as a percentage).
Sources: Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies, CIRST, Université du Québec à Montréal; Chile data from Dr M anual
Krauskopf, Private Communication
These data support the hypothesis of steadily increasing levels of international collaboration in
the world of academic science. It is interesting to note that, at the end of the 1980’s, all three
curves show an inflection indicating an increased rate of growth of international collaboration.
The end of the 1980’s was the point at which electronic communications began to be widely
available. It would appear that the arrival of the Internet, and in particular the availability of e-
mail, has accelerated a pre-existing trend towards greater levels of international collaboration.
In fact, the average rate of growth of collaborative publication, expressed as a percentage of joint
publications per year, more than doubled when the period 1989-1995 is compared to the period
1980-1988, as is shown in Table 5.
Period 1 - 1980-1988 Period 2 – 1989-1995

World Rate of Change 0.43 0.84
Canadian Rate of Change 0.62 1.49
Chilean rate of Change 0.74 2.16
Table 5: Average rates of change of international joint authorship of papers, in percentage of joint publications per year
Source: As for Figure 17
Further identification of the role of information, computer and telecommunications (ICT)

technologies in international collaboration in science has been provided by OECD in a report
(OECD 1998, p19) which described how
“A more significant change in the organization of science has been the increase in remote
collaboration, particularly at international level . Computer networks have reduced the need for
co-workers to be at a single location. Consequently, a new form of scientific work has emerged,
the “extended research group”. This is typically a large, unified, cohesive, co-operative research

group that is geographically dispersed, yet coordinated as if it were at one location and under the
guidance of a single director. It provides access to colleagues and to equipment, software and
databases that are traditionally part of laboratory organization, without regard to geography.
xxii
These “collaboratories” rely heavily on ICT for coordinating their work .”
Within Canada’s pattern of increasing international cooperation, there has, according to

researchers from L’Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies at L’ Université du Québec à
Montréal been a shift in the countries of origin of partners. They make the point that “Depuis les
années 1980, nos chercheurs universitaires s’allient de moins en moins avec des partenaires américains.
Mais ce changement n’a pas augmenté la collaboration avec des chercheurs européens, à l’exception
des Allemands. Nos chercheurs se sont tournés plutôt vers l’Asie, surtout le Japon, et vers de petits pays
industrialisés comme les Pays-Bas pour trouver des partenaires.” [GODIN B. et GINGRAS Y.
(1999)]xxiii
A conclusion
Gibbons and Farina in their 1982 paper had speculated that governments would need to introduce
funding modalities other than traditional ‘research grants’ if changes in the patterns of producing
and using scientific knowledge were to be promoted. The evidence from the three case studies
discussed in this paper shows that in three different sets of economic and political circumstances,
governments have worked simultaneously to maintain the value of their support to researchers
operating in the traditional ‘Republic of Science’ while channeling substantially increasing levels
of support in ways consistent with the criteria defining the ‘new modes of production of
knowledge’.

Bibliographic references
i
POLANYI, M, 1962, “The Republic of Science: its Political and Economic Theory”,
Minerva, 1, I, 54-73
ii
GIBBONS, LIMOGES, NOWOTNY, SCHWARTZMAN, SCOTT and TROW, 1994: " The
New Production of Knowledge" London, Sage,
iii
See for example SMUTYLO, T, and KOALA, S., 1992, Research Networks: Evolution and
Evaluation from a Donor’s perspective, Ottawa, IDRC
iv
de SOLLA PRICE, D. (1963) Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University
Press.
v
GIBBONS and FARINA, 1982, "The Funding of University Research: a comparative study
of the United Kingdom and Canada" Research Policy 11 , pp 15-31.
vi
OECD, 1964 The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities, (The "Frascati
Manual") , OECD, Paris,
vii
This very brief summary was first developed in MULLIN, ADAM, HALLIWELL, and
MILLIGAN, 1999, Science, Technology, and Innovation in Chile , Ottawa. IDRC
viii
OECD , 1963, Science, Economic Growth and Government Policy, OECD, Paris
ix
OECD, 1964, The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities, (The "Frascati
Manual") OECD, Paris,
x
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,1965, Basic Research and National Goals, A
Report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, US House of Representatives,
Washington
xi
OECD 1971, Science, Growth and Society, OECD, Paris
xii
OECD 1980, Technical Change and Economic Policy, OECD, Paris
xiii
LUNDVALL, B-A (Ed) National Innovation Systems: Towards a theory of Innovation and
Interactive Learning, Pinter, London, 1992).
xiv
Mayorga, Román, 1997 Closing the Gap, Social Programs Division, Social Programs and Sustainable
Development Department, IDB, Washington
xv
GODIN, B., GINGRAS, Y., and DAVIGNON, L. (1998), Knowledge Flows in Canada as
measured by Bibliometrics, Working paper prepared for Statistics Canada, Catalogue #
88F006XPB No. 10
xvi
GODIN B. and . GINGRAS Y. (1999) The Place of Universities in the System of
Knowledge Production., OST, CIRST, Université du Québec à Montréal,
xvii
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 1999, Public Investments in
University Research: Reaping the Benefits, Report of the Expert Panel on the
Commercialization of University Research, Ottawa, Government of Canada
xviii
MULLIN, ADAM, HALLIWELL, and MILLIGAN , 1999, Science, Technology, and
Innovation in Chile , Ottawa. IDRC
xix
Since FONDECYT gives three year grants, calculations were made of the volume of funding
going to new grants each year, assuming that grants would be allocated in three equal
tranches. This assumption was necessary in the absence of disaggregated data and can only
provide a general indicator of likely trends.
xx
All of the related documentation is available at
http://www.dacst.gov.za/science_technology/index.htm

xxi
Private Communication, Mr. William Blankley, Manager: Science and Technology Policy
Unit, National Research Foundation, Pretoria
xxii
OECD 1998, The Global Research Village: How Information and Communication
Technologies Affect the Science System, OECD Paris
xxiii
GODIN B. et Y. GINGRAS (1999) L'impact de la recherche en partenariat sur la
production scientifique, rapport présenté à l'AUCC, , OST, CIRST, Université du Québec à
Montréal, AUCC, Ottawa

Mullin 2001 - Chaging Patters of Research Funding

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Mullin 2001 - Chaging Patters of Research Funding

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CHANGING P ATTERNS OF RESEARCH F UNDING (1960-2000)

A Paper by James Mullin,

Two different views of research

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 2

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 3

The Evolution of Governmental thinking on the support of science and

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 4

S&T Policy thinking within the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)

Mayorga goes on to argue that

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 5

& Study and co-ordination of policies for National Systems of Innovation.

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 6

The case of Canada

Figure 1 – Canada’s GERD to GDP Ratio

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 7

Figure 3 ; The Distribution, by performer, of Canada’s Gross Expenditure on R&D, 1963-1998.

v As a result of a combination of market forces and of government policy (especially a

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 8

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 9

Figure 5: Sources of Funding of R&D in Canadian Universities

In this figure, it should be noted that ;

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 10

Can Foundation for Innovation

Figure 6: Percentage shares of Federal Funding of University R&D, by source

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 11

Figure 7: Annual Grant Budgets (excluding administration) of Canadian Granting Councils

An analysis of the spending on support of research at NSERC leads to evidence of the

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 12

NCE Program Announced

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 13

Average Research Grant as a % of 1978-79 Average,

Figure 9: Patterns of NSERC Research Grants

According to NSERC’s website (www.nserc.ca) the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE)

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 14

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 15

Geomatics for Informed Decision 1.97

The first feature was that

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 16

Consider the IRIS program where

v Phase 1 (1990-94) financed 24 research projects, involving over 130 researchers at 18

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 17

1980 1985 1990 1995

Proposals Researchers $Can

Total - 1997-98 4 89 6,632,779

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 18

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 19

The Case of Chile

Figure 10: Chile’s Ratio of GERD to GDP

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 20

According to a recent study by an international team, (Mullin et al 1999)xviii, “Chile’s Comisión

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 21

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 22

Year ISI listed Publications/ No of Publications

1981 675 5.96 3,420 0.20

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 23

1996 1,489 6,619 0.23

Table 4 – Publications by Chilean researchers in the international literature

The Case of South Africa

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 24

• to permit a reallocation of resources from the historical patterns of government science

Figure 14: South Africa’s Ratio of GERD to GDP

Second draft: possible contribution to ISSJ Page 25

other developing countries.