No C 343/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 12. 84 
Opinion on the communication from the Commission to the Council entitled 'Stimulating 
European cooperation and scientific and technical interchange — Plan 1985 to 1988' (') 
(84/C 343/04) 
On 3 May 1984, pursuant to Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social 
Committee on the communication from the Commission to the Council entitled 
'Stimulating European cooperation and scientific and technical interchange — Plan 
1985 to 1988'. 
On 5 October 1984 the Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions, which had been 
given the task of preparing the work on this matter, adopted its opinion on the basis of 
an oral report by Mr Jean Querleux, rapporteur. 
At its 220th plenary session (meeting of 25 October 1984) the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion. 
The Committee was, however, astounded to learn 
that this opinion would probably serve no purpose 
since the Council intends, in its draft budget, to 
delete virtually all appropriations earmarked for 
stimulation of research in 1985. The Committee 
deplores this attitude in the firm belief that even a 
temporary interruption of all Community action in 
this sphere would be tantamount to a disastrous pol­
itical abdication of the Community's proclaimed 
aim of establishing itself as a world force for pro­
gress. 
The opinion set out below has therefore been 
adopted in the hope that the draft budget for 1985 
will be revised. 
1. Overall assessment 
1.1. The Committee generally welcomes the draft 
communication and the appended draft Council 
Decision, subject to the suggestions and comments 
set out below. It should be remembered that the 
Committee has already tackled this area in its opi­
nion of 23 February 1983 (2) on the proposal for a 
Council Decision adopting an experimental Com­
munity action to stimulate the efficacy of the Euro­
pean Economic Community's scientific and tech­
nical potential (3). 
2. General comments and suggestions 
2.1. The Committee remains convinced that the 
time is ripe for the creation of a genuine European 
(') OJ No C 142, 29. 5'. 1984, p. 4. 
(2) OJNoC90, 5.4. 1983, p. 4. 
(3) OJ No C 337, 22. 12. 1982, p. 6. scientific action space, on a scale comparable to that 
existing in the United States, is of key importance to 
the EEC. This conviction, already voiced in the 
1983 opinion referred to above, if fuelled (a) by the 
results obtained to date from the 'experimental sti­
mulation action' instigated in 1983 and (b) the res­
ponse of the various national R&D bodies keenly 
interested in the scheme. 
In the Committee's view, these aspirations for a 
European scientific action space, which come over 
clearly in the communication proper, are considera­
bly diluted in the draft Council Decision. There is a 
striking discrepancy in the force of the wording in 
the two documents. The draft Decision confines 
itself to recommending a number of measures 
(which are, of course, both sound and desirable) 
without placing them in the context of an innova­
tory and inspiring ideal: a European scientific 
action space. For instance, when referring to mobil­
ity of researchers in the Community, the first para­
graph of the Annex to the draft Decision uses the 
terms 'aid' and 'support' where 'promote' or 'organ­
ize' could have been expected. 
2.2. The Committee sees the key priority as being 
the organization and stimulation of intra-Com-
munity R, D & D so as to give a determined boost to 
circulation and interchange among researchers. 
In particular, the Committee suggests that attention 
be focused on the systematic build-up of networks 
of twinned laboratories, with each network special­
izing in a major area of research and operating 
24. 12. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/13 
under the leadership of a pilot laboratory of estab­
lished reputation, which would act as liaison body. 
Within these networks, which should be at liberty to 
weigh up the situation, emphasis should be placed 
on a credit system for regular exchanges between 
researchers. 
2.3. The Committee fears that there is some incon­
sistency in claiming (Article 2 of the draft Decision 
and second paragraph of the Annex) that stimula­
tion measures could apply to all fields covered by 
the exact and natural sciences, yet pinpointing, by 
way of illustrations, eight fields as deserving parti­
cular attention. Reason says that eight examples are 
either too many or too few. 
The Committee therefore would ask the Commis­
sion to state in more clear-cut terms that such mea­
sures apply to any field complying with certain cri­
teria: scientific merit, Community value of the 
expected results, intrinsic interest of the Community 
component of the work. 
The Committee also noticed that this stimulation 
programme could, if need be, back up the measures 
provided for in specific programmes in the spheres 
of information technology (ESPRIT) and biotech­
nology (BEP, BAP). In these key growth areas, 
Europe must maintain and boost its present strength 
and, most important, seek energetically for success­
ful industrial outlets holding out hopes for expan­
sion. 
One final point on the listing of the areas of action 
quoted as examples. As mentioned in its 1983 
opinion, the Committee much regrets the omission 
of the social sciences. It observes that the Commis­
sion, on reflection, has opted to give the FAST pro­
gramme sole responsibility for social sciences, in 
order to avoid any risk of duplication. The Com­
mittee accepts this explanation but in view of the 
overwhelming importance of the 'social' element in 
the present era, an original Community contribution 
in this sphere would do much to enhance Europe's 
image and humanist role. The Committee therefore 
calls on the Commission to frame without delay a 
specific research programme for the social sciences. 
2.4. In view of the Community's general financial 
climate, the proposed 40 million ECU appropriation 
for 1985/86 seems reasonable. The Committee would advocate that the bulk of these funds be ear­
marked for promoting laboratory twinning, research 
grants and contextual measures conducive to mobil­
ity and interchange. The pooling of effort on joint, 
coordinated ventures will obviously be of far greater 
benefit in creating a European scientific action 
space than four or five specific operations contracts, 
alone accounting for 25 % of the budget. 
3. Specific comments and suggestions 
3.1. The Committee recommends the involvement 
of private research laboratories in Community 
research projects. During the experimental stimula­
tion programme it was found that private laborato­
ries had been inadequately briefed and had dis­
played little interest. The Commission's information 
channels should concentrate on the trade organiza­
tions representing such laboratories (both large and 
small) and make it plain in invitations to tender that 
the cooperation of private laboratories is not just 
envisaged but positively encouraged. 
3.2. One of the sources of US scientific effective­
ness is the constant two-way flow of researchers 
between academic institutions and private industry. 
While recognizing that such mobility cannot be dic­
tated, the Committee urges the Community auth­
orities to launch a campaign to publicize informa­
tion and recommendations. Particular emphasis 
should be focused on the general safeguards devised 
to preserve confidentiality of the tangible results of 
joint research ventures, backed by additional safe­
guards tailored to individual circumstances. The 
true value of basic research lies in moving as quickly 
as possible to the applied stage, which is the key to 
economic success. With this in mind, the Committee 
hopes that the Commission will be very careful to 
achieve a judicious balance between stimulating 
basic research and innovatory engineering projects 
and that it will strongly encourage researchers to 
instigate constant contacts with engineers. 
3.3. On the idea of researchers' travel vouchers, the 
Committee considers that the practical details must 
be meticulously worked out to ensure that this 
scheme does not diverge from its single aim, namely 
to give financial assistance to researchers travelling 
to meet other researchers. 
No C 343/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 12. 84 
Similarly, career endorsement for particularly 
mobile researchers may at first sight seem an attrac­
tive proposition but the precise arrangements and 
the practical implications are still very nebulous. 
3.4. The Committee wholeheartedly supports the 
setting-up of a European data bank. Though the 
costs would inevitably be high, such a bank would 
be a major achievement. The Committee recom­
mends that the 'handbook' formula be avoided as 
updating is virtually impossible. Instead efforts 
should be concentrated from the start on a compu-
Done at Brussels, 25 October 1984. 
Introduction 
1. Member States' social security systems are being 
put under increasing financial pressure by the ongo­
ing economic, employment and financial crisis. The 
Commission of the European Communities has set 
out some of its ideas on this subject in a communi­
cation to the Council, which describes the economic terized system enlisting the most advanced informa­
tion technology. 
3.5. CODEST must continue to be a key compo­
nent. Its composition will probably have to be 
reviewed and agreement reached among the Mem­
ber States to ascertain that members are sufficiently 
versatile and in touch with industrial requirements. 
3.6. The Committee agrees with the principle of 
two-yearly assessments but recommends that some 
manifestly long-term operations be given a 'renewal 
guarantee' once they get off the ground. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
background and how the Member States' different 
schemes operate and also reviews (a) these schemes' 
development from the point of view of revenue and 
expenditure and the protection provided and (b) 
their financing. 
2. The Economic and Social Committee has 
decided to produce an own-initiative opinion on this Opinion on the current social security problems in the countries of the EEC 
(84/C 343/05) 
Procedure 
On 27 April 1983 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth para­
graph of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on cur­
rent social security problems in the countries of the EEC. 
The Section for Social Questions, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's 
work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 September 1984, in the light of the 
report by Mrs Engelen-Kefer. 
At its 220th plenary session (meeting of 25 October 1984), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following opinion by 56 votes to 32, with 11 abstentions (vote 
recorded).