Looking at R&D by inputs alone is a mistake anyway. You could spend billions on attemptint to revive phrenology but that doesn't mean you'll get anything of wor

Looking at R&D by inputs alone is a mistake anyway. You could spend billions on attemptint to revive phrenology but that doesn't mean you'll get anything of worth. There are certainly times when it needs more but spending more into it isn't an intrinsic merit. Plus even if you have a fruitful program it doesn't mean it can always be scaled up meaningfully just because there is more money available. The output of R&D is what justifies it - although great potential may take a lot of time to vindicate. A low ratio would result from a successful matured program which simply cannot expand fast enough to reinvest. Under that metric a program with the top people paid industry leading salaries and pumping out generations of advances would be worse than a lab full of scammers which never produced any applications. That isn't a very useful metric.