Introduction 



The National Science Board is charged by the 

 Congress with providing an annual report of the 

 state of science in the United States.' In its first 

 four reports, the Board dealt with selected 

 aspects of this subject, but with this, the fifth 

 report, the Board begins the development of a 

 system of indicators for describing the state of 

 the entire scientific endeavor. These indicators, 

 expanded and refined in the coming years, are in- 

 tended to measure and monitor U.S. science — to 

 identify strengths and weaknesses of the enter- 

 prise and to chart its changing state. 



Such indicators, updated annually, should 

 provide an early warning of events and trends 

 which might reduce the capacity of science — and 

 subsequently technology — to meet the needs of 

 the Nation. The indicators should assist also in 

 setting priorities for the enterprise, in allocat- 

 ing resources for its functions, and in guiding it 

 toward needed change and new opportunities. 



A system of science indicators which would 

 fulfill these several purposes must include 

 indices of both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of 

 the enterprise. Intrinsic measures would include 

 the resources used for science; the condition of 

 institutions involved in training, research, and 

 technical innovation; quantity and quality of 

 associated human resources; and advances in 

 science. Extrinsic indices center around the 

 application of scientific knowledge, and the tech- 

 nology it fosters, to the achievement of national 

 goals — in areas such as health, energy, environ- 

 ment, defense, productivity, and foreign 

 trade — and the consequent impacts on that 

 elusive entity, the "quality of life." Measures of 

 these extrinsic aspects are particularly difficult 

 to devise; the translation of science into tech- 

 nology, the diverse applications of the two, and 

 their myriad impacts are all intertwined with in- 

 numerable economic and social variables. 



The realization of such a system of indi- 

 cators — or even one which is less comprehen- 

 sive — will be a difficult and long task, requiring 



D investigation of many potential indices, 



D expansion of the underlying data base. 



. ' Section 4(g) of the National Science Foundation Act as 

 amended by Public Law 90-407. 



D improvement of methods for measuring 

 the impacts of science and technology, 



D experience in interpreting the indices, and 



D demonstration of their utility. 



In view of these problems and uncertainties, 

 the effort to develop indicators is regarded as an 

 experiment — a long-term experiment to 

 determine if a useful system of indices can be 

 devised in the years ahead. A central concept of 

 the experiment is an evolving set of indicators, 

 derived from the continuing exploration, refine- 

 ment, and testing of prospective indices. The set 

 will be expanded, refined, and updated annually, 

 as new data become available and as the enter- 

 prise itself changes. Throughout, the criterion of 

 "usefulness" will be used to judge the value of 

 individual indices, and to gauge the success of 

 the experiment as it unfolds. 



Quantitative indicators, no matter how use- 

 ful, are not a substitute for the experience and 

 judgment of the scientific community. Indices, at 

 their best, can only supplement this experience 

 and judgment. Indeed, the interpretation of indi- 

 cators — what they mean for the present and 

 future health of the enterprise — requires the 

 judgment of this community. 



The Report 



Indicators in this report deal with facets of the 

 entire scientific endeavor, as well as certain 

 aspects of technology. They range from meas- 

 ures of basic research activity and industrial 

 R&D, through indices of scientific and engi- 

 neering personnel and institutional capabilities, 

 to indicators of productivity and the U.S. balance 

 of trade in high-technology products. Such a 

 broad range of indices was included in the initial 

 step of the experiment in order (a) to explore the 

 scope of the effort involved in developing a 

 relatively comprehensive system of indicators, 

 (b) to identify gaps in the data base, and (c) to 

 select specific areas for focused efforts in the 

 future. 



While many potential indices were conceived 

 for future development and a number of new 

 concepts and even new data collections were 



Vll 



