1. See, among others, the overviews offered by the reports of the US National Science Board,Science and Engineering Indicators, Washington D.C., 1987, and of the OECD,Science and Technology Outlook 1988, Paris, 1988.
2. D. Archibugi, M. Pianta, Specialization and size of technological activities in industrial countries: the analysis of patent data. In:M. Perlman (Ed.),Entrepreneurship., Technological Innovation and Economic Growth: International Perspectives, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (forthcoming).
3. Among an extensive literature on the relationship between science and technology, seeN. Rosenberg, How exogenous is science? In:Inside the Black Box, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982;D. de Solla Price, The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovations,Research Policy, 13, (1984);D. Archibugi, Paradigms and revolutions: from science to technology?, Paper presented at the EASST 4th annual meeting, Strasbourg, October 1986. An empirical study of this relationship is in:F. Narin, E. Noma, Is technology becoming science?,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 369.
4. A recent survey of national cases can be found in:B. Martin, J. Irvine,Research Foresight. Priority-Setting in Science, Pinter, London, 1989.
5. The relative decline of British scientific output has been the subject of a long standing debate, which has raised questions also on the significance of the database used here. See,B. Martin, J. Irvine, F. Narin, C. Sterritt, The continuing decline of British science,Nature, 330 (12 November 1987) 123;L. Leydersdorff, Problems with the ‘measurement’ of national scientific performance,Science and Public Policy, 15 (1988) 149;T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Assessing assessments of British science: some facts and figures to accept or decline,Scientometrics 15 (1989) 165;J. Irvine, B. Martin, International comparisons of scientific performances revisited,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 369.