Skip to main content
Log in

Government-funded academic science is a consumer good, not a producer good: A comparative reassessment of Britain's scientific and technological achievements since 1794 and a comment on the bibliometry of B. Martin and J. Irvine

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Martin andIrvine believe that their bibliometric data indicates that British science is in decline. This paper shows that, in fact, their data points to a considerable expansion in British science. To account for different countries' scientific performance, this paper generates simple predictive formulae that correlate Gross National Product with research output.

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

Access this article

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. Editorial, Bringing research back to life,Nature, 344 (1990) 275.

  2. B.R. Martin, J. Irvine, R. Turner, The writing on the wall for British science,New Scientist, 104 (1984) 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Irvine, B. Martin, T. Peacock, R. Turner, Charting the decline in British science,Nature 316 (1985) 587–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. B.R. Martin, J. Irvine, F. Narin, C. Sterritt, The continuing decline of British science,Nature, 330 (1987) 123–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. J. Irvine, B.R. Martin, Is Britain spending enough on science?,Nature, 323 (1986) 591–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Evaluation of National Performance in Basic Research, ABRC Science Policy Studies, No. 1 (1986) Department of Education and Science, U.K.

  7. An International Comparison of Government Funding of Academic and Academically Related Research, ABRC Science Studies, No. 2 (1986).

  8. T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Assessing assessments of British science: some facts and figures to accept or decline,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 165–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. B.R. Martin, The bibliometric assessment of UK scientific performance — a reply to Braun, Glänzel and Schubert,Scientometrics, 20 (1990) this issue.

  10. Science Policy Research Unit Annual Report 1989–1990, University of Sussex, 1990.

  11. University Statistics 1986–87, pubs. University Grants Committee, 1988.

  12. Information provided by the Association of Medical Charities, London.

  13. J. Bray,Science for the Citizen, pubs. Labour Party, London, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  14. The Case for Increased Investment in our Universities, Association of Universe Teachers, London, 1989.

  15. F. Bacon,The Advancement of Learning, London, 1605.

  16. A. Smith,The Wealth of Nations, London, 1776.

  17. R. Solow, Technical change and the aggregate production functions,Review of Economics and Statistics, 39 (1957) 312–320.

    Google Scholar 

  18. E. Gibbon,Autobiography, London, 1796.

  19. S. Johnson, Journey to the Western Islands, London, 1775.

  20. A. Bloom,The Closing of the American Mind, Simon and Schuster, USA; Penguin Books, UK, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  21. N. Rosenberg,Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. Langrish, M. Gibbons, W.G. Evans, F.R. Jevons,Wealth from Knowledge: A Study of Innovation in Industry, Macmillan, London, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  23. C. Barnett,The Audit of War, Macmillans, London, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  24. L. Stone, Literacy and education in England 1640–1900,Past and Present, 42 (1969) 69–139.

    Google Scholar 

  25. C. Babbage, The decline of science in England,Nature, 340 (1989) 499–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. T. Williams,The Triumph of Invention, MacDonald, London, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  27. H. M. TREASURY, Central Statistical Office; quoted inThe Independent on Sunday, 27th May 1990. U.K.

  28. F.A. Hayek,The Road to Serfdom, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  29. K. Arrow,The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, 1962.

  30. R. Nelson, The simple economics of basic scientific research,Journal of Political Economy, 67 (1959) 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. N. Rosenberg, Why do firms do basic research with their own money,Research Policy, 19 (1990) 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. T. Kealey in:Ideas and Politics in Modern Britain,J.C.D. Clark, (Ed.), Macmillan, London, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  33. M.L. Dertouzos, R.K. Lester, R.M. Solow Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. USA, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  34. D. Noble, Britain's culture in crisis,Independent, 13th January 1987.

  35. British science over the hill, Editorial,Nature, 323 (1986) 655–656.

  36. J-J Rousseau,Discours sur les sciences et les arts, Paris, 1750.

  37. J. Swift,Gulliver's Travels, London, 1726.

  38. ACOST,Developments in Biotechnology, HMSO, London, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  39. S. Dickman, J. Maddox, Science in Switzerland,Nature, 336 (1988) 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. B.R. Williams, Research and economic growth—What should we except?Minerva, 3 (1964) 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert,Scientometrics, 13 (1988) 181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kealey, T. Government-funded academic science is a consumer good, not a producer good: A comparative reassessment of Britain's scientific and technological achievements since 1794 and a comment on the bibliometry of B. Martin and J. Irvine. Scientometrics 20, 369–394 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017527

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017527

Keywords

Navigation